School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.

Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Wow, that really puts things in perspective. I mean, again it's making the numbers seem really scary by making it over a million, but still.

Granted, in that same time frame over 223,000,000 people will die from other causes. Basically the entire united states will all die! 300,000 people will drown in that same time frame, not including those on boats.

As I said in my original post, using absolute numbers with enormous sample sizes is at best misleading, and at worst emotional manipulation.

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

4 people a day... first off that's way low, but you didn't know that. In a country of 300,000,000 people we need to be focusing on 4 people a day? If we start talking about everything that kills 4 people a day we're not gonna have time to eat because we'll be so busy. I mean, autoerotic asphyxiation kills about 2 people a day, does that make the cut? Falling out of bed kills 1.5.

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.

Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.

Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

At least making it so you have to take responsibility for your weapons is a start. If you leave your gun out, loaded and a child grabs it, and discharges it, you are a pad parent. You should have some consequences to your actions.

If nearly 2/3of gun related death is suicide, that also points to an issue with guns. People now will say, well they would try it no matter guns or not.

The thing is, suicidal ideations often pass after a brief crisis moment. Then that person can get help to avoid or deal with that crisis better in the future. If a gun is the weapon of choice to end ones life, it will be fatal more often then not, not allowing any second chance. This, to me, says even more, that at the very least, guns should be kept in a locked and secure location.

I am not saying guns should be banned, just that a meaningful conversation should take place on how to limit the injury and death that they cause. Will it ever be 100%? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean we should not try and reduce.

Wow, that really puts things in perspective. I mean, again it's making the numbers seem really scary by making it over a million, but still.

Granted, in that same time frame over 223,000,000 people will die from other causes. Basically the entire united states will all die! 300,000 people will drown in that same time frame, not including those on boats.

As I said in my original post, using absolute numbers with enormous sample sizes is at best misleading, and at worst emotional manipulation.

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

4 people a day... first off that's way low, but you didn't know that. In a country of 300,000,000 people we need to be focusing on 4 people a day? If we start talking about everything that kills 4 people a day we're not gonna have time to eat because we'll be so busy. I mean, autoerotic asphyxiation kills about 2 people a day, does that make the cut? Falling out of bed kills 1.5.

[/b]

How many people does terrorism kill in the US? out of 300 million people? But yet we are trying to ban entire countries from entry.

How many people does terrorism kill in the US? out of 300 million people? But yet we are trying to ban entire countries from entry.

Yeah, which is a ridiculously stupid idea. Not gonna find any argument from me here. Don't even get me started on the wall or the TSA.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I don't actually think this is the case.

The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

I think that given the hyperbolic position that a lot of Democrats take on gun-control that their main obstacle in presenting this sort of legislation would be convincing Republicans they are actually serious.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

This is a key problem in the gun debate, too.

Looking at the website dycker1978 linked, while it's hard to add all the data since they don't do summaries (>.>) it looks like 590 total mass shooting deaths in 2017, by their standards for mass shooting. Reducing all non-mass shooting gun deaths by roughly 2% will have more impact on overall gun violence than if every single one of those events didn't happen.

If the goal is reducing overall gun violence it seems focusing on relatively small wins in the very large categories (for example, reducing suicide rate by gun by 2.5% is also roughly 500 fewer gun deaths with the roughly 20000 gun suicides/year) will have as much of an impact as reducing mass shooting deaths by 90%..

I disagree. There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives. This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that. No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.

Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

At least making it so you have to take responsibility for your weapons is a start. If you leave your gun out, loaded and a child grabs it, and discharges it, you are a pad parent. You should have some consequences to your actions.

If nearly 2/3of gun related death is suicide, that also points to an issue with guns. People now will say, well they would try it no matter guns or not.

The thing is, suicidal ideations often pass after a brief crisis moment. Then that person can get help to avoid or deal with that crisis better in the future. If a gun is the weapon of choice to end ones life, it will be fatal more often then not, not allowing any second chance. This, to me, says even more, that at the very least, guns should be kept in a locked and secure location.

I am not saying guns should be banned, just that a meaningful conversation should take place on how to limit the injury and death that they cause. Will it ever be 100%? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean we should not try and reduce.

This reminded me of a show I watched some time ago. It was about those who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge to commit suicide. They interviewed a couple jumpers who actually survived the fall. I remember quite distinctly one of them saying that on his way down, all he could think about was how he had just made the dumbest decision of his life and wished he could take it back. Luckily he survived the fall, but was in pretty bad shape physically.

The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

I disagree. People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc. It's easy for your average person to buy a gun in Canada and Australia. Yet these are commonly pointed to 'no gun' type countries with legislation that is railed against by gun advocates. It's easy to buy a gun in Canada and Australia. Yet these are the types of authoritarian 'no gun' type countries that are often railed against by gun advocates.

What the other side hears is 'no guns' but that's usually got nothing to do with the actual argument being put forward.

I disagree. People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

A large gun related debate in the past years in the USA has been related to "assault weapons" (which expired early 2000s). Nearly every time a non-gang related mass shooting happens, this subject again becomes subject of the media/politicians (well, Democrats generally).

Perhaps the media is at fault for this, if it's not actually what they want, but the media sure makes it look like Democrats want bans on various types of guns.

I disagree. People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

A large gun related debate in the past years in the USA has been related to "assault weapons" (which expired early 2000s). Nearly every time a non-gang related mass shooting happens, this subject again becomes subject of the media/politicians (well, Democrats generally).

Perhaps the media is at fault for this, if it's not actually what they want, but the media sure makes it look like Democrats want bans on various types of guns.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted. That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US. Yet, you equate the two.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted. That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US. Yet, you equate the two.

Nah, the disagreement we have here is exactly the problem that exists in the entire gun debate.

The problem is the primary publicized gun policies that Democrats have effectively boil down to, "we want to make it much harder to get a very small set of guns that are a tiny percentage of the overall gun violence problem."

Rather than, "we want to make people take increased responsibility for their actions."

Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

In other words? Stop making sensationalistic legislation aimed at a relatively small percentage of the overall gun violence problem and start suggesting reasonable legislation that will make Republicans look foolish to not adopt. Because contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are reasonable.

The Republican party would burn a large amount of its political capital on the gun-control issue if they fight legislation aimed at simply increasing the personal responsibility of gun owners for their guns.

I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I don't actually think this is the case.

Except it's the exact case happening now. Immediately after Vegas it was a "bad time" to talk about sensible laws. Sense then, you know, in-between mass shootings, there was no discussion either. Feel free to browse back through Sander's press conferences after the Vegas shooting and most recently when asked about what's been done/discussed since.

Quote

The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

No, the problem is your straw-man fallacy

Quote

I think that given the hyperbolic position that a lot of Democrats take on gun-control that their main obstacle in presenting this sort of legislation would be convincing Republicans they are actually serious.

Again, no! Poll after poll shows most Republicans do not want stricter gun laws and most Dems do. Notice the word "anti-gun" appears nowhere. Occasionally they find some common ground. But the whole "ahhhh Dems want to take away your guns" is an extreme position based on a straw-man fallacy.

Except it's the exact case happening now. Immediately after Vegas it was a "bad time" to talk about sensible laws. Sense then, you know, in-between mass shootings, there was no discussion either. Feel free to browse back through Sander's press conferences after the Vegas shooting and most recently when asked about what's been done/discussed since.

Ehhh.

Just look at what actually is proposed in most legislation around gun control. How many of the bills are even remotely related to increased personal responsibility for gun owners (vs making it harder to buy guns)?

Nearly all legislation and debate centers around making increased regulation for buying guns.

Quote

No, the problem is your straw-man fallacy

Then why is the entire debate often called "gun control" and not "gun responsibility?"

Is this skillful manipulation by the NRA to change the topic to be "control" and such associate the entire gun debate with governmental regulation?

I'm increasingly thinking the media (either solely or via NRA influence) are at fault for presenting the entire argument in this framework.

Quote

Again, no! Poll after poll shows most Republicans do not want stricter gun laws and most Dems do. Notice the word "anti-gun" appears nowhere. Occasionally they find some common ground. But the whole "ahhhh Dems want to take away your guns" is an extreme position based on a straw-man fallacy.

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.

I would be shocked if a sizable percentage of Republicans would be opposed to increased personal responsibility for gun owners. For that matter, Democrats either (except I suspect they'd likely oppose legislation on this front as "not far enough" if Republicans proposed it).

We literally have people in this very thread saying that the statistics and numbers don't matter "because children."

What do you think happens when we put the "reasonable restrictions" on guns and then a kid gets shot again? Do they say "well, we put reasonable restrictions so sometimes these things just happen"? Or "well it looks like that restriction didn't work very well, let's get rid of it and try something else"? Or do you think they'll go farther with the restrictions while not removing old ones? Again of course using very emotionally targeted ads of happy kids in a classroom with a masked man right outside about to burst in.

You can look at the restrictions in a few states to see they are more concerned with making guns more difficult and inconvenient to get than they are with making sensible laws. Having a foregrip or a collapsible stock does not make a gun more deadly, but putting onerous restrictions on gun owners and manufacturers does make people less likely to buy them. California requires new technology implemented into pistols which hasn't ever been used successfully, thus defacto banning any new pistol designs. That regulation actually makes people less safe, as they can't get newly updated designs of pistols and are stuck with grandfathered versions.

The only way to completely stop any gun violence is to have no guns. If people have an "any gun violence is too much and action has to be taken" attitude, the end result is banning guns. Of course, when people still get shot I don't know what they'll go after next, but it doesn't really matter.

We live in the safest time we've ever had in the United States, and we've got people talking about making new legislation affecting millions of citizens based on 4 deaths a day (although the number is low, that's what they're basing it on). 4. Out of 300,000,000. We could reduce gun deaths by 90% and get it down to where it's actually 4 deaths a day, and people would still say it's too much as evidenced in this very conversation.

Are most democrats pushing for gun bans? No, not yet. I do find it hard to believe that once we get universal background checks and ban assault rifles they'll stop pushing for more regulations though, because people will still be killed using guns. They'll spin the story the exact same as the article that spawned this thread. 11 shootings in 26 days!

So maybe those of you in this thread can enlighten me. Let's say we implement every restriction you want, universal background checks, waiting periods, bans on semi autos, the works (not sure who wants what but those are common themes). Say we do all of that, and a year later a school is shot up and 5 kindergarteners are killed. Will you be satisfied with current restrictions, or will you push for more because kids getting killed is not ever acceptable?

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted. That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US. Yet, you equate the two.

Nah, the disagreement we have here is exactly the problem that exists in the entire gun debate.

The problem is the primary publicized gun policies that Democrats have effectively boil down to, "we want to make it much harder to get a very small set of guns that are a tiny percentage of the overall gun violence problem."

Rather than, "we want to make people take increased responsibility for their actions."

Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

In other words? Stop making sensationalistic legislation aimed at a relatively small percentage of the overall gun violence problem and start suggesting reasonable legislation that will make Republicans look foolish to not adopt. Because contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are reasonable.

The Republican party would burn a large amount of its political capital on the gun-control issue if they fight legislation aimed at simply increasing the personal responsibility of gun owners for their guns.

That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have. It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though. At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US. This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I tend to agree, and the emotions are very much related to your background and upbringing. Hundreds of thousands of children sustain serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries from extracurricular sports, but if anyone tried to ban high school football I suspect the backlash of jock parents would rival NRA pro-gun activism. Similarly, if urban areas tried to make private vehicle ownership illegal and forced residents to rely on safer public transportation instead citizens would riot!

I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns and learning to shoot was just a normal part of growing up. I currently live in an area without a police department, we must rely on the county sheriff for protection. Response time can be 30 minutes or more, so carrying a handgun is considered by many to be a civic duty. You are more likely to need protection from a rabid raccoon than a criminal, but a firearm is handy in either case. Women in remote areas feel especially vulnerable, so ladies night at the gun range becomes an empowering experience. Banning gun ownership here sounds just as ridiculous as banning high school sports or private vehicle ownership would sound in the city.

People are much more willing to live with familiar dangers than they are willing to accept unfamiliar safety constraints.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I tend to agree, and the emotions are very much related to your background and upbringing. Hundreds of thousands of children sustain serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries from extracurricular sports, but if anyone tried to ban high school football I suspect the backlash of jock parents would rival NRA pro-gun activism. Similarly, if urban areas tried to make private vehicle ownership illegal and forced residents to rely on safer public transportation instead citizens would riot!

So, to make the same point . . . again . . . Nobody has attempted to ban all guns. They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

Much the same way that there are rules regarding helmet use when playing high-school football. Much the same way that private vehicle use is heavily regulated.

I currently live in an area without a police department, we must rely on the county sheriff for protection. Response time can be 30 minutes or more, so carrying a handgun is considered by many to be a civic duty. You are more likely to need protection from a rabid raccoon than a criminal, but a firearm is handy in either case. Women in remote areas feel especially vulnerable, so ladies night at the gun range becomes an empowering experience. Banning gun ownership here sounds just as ridiculous as banning high school sports or private vehicle ownership would sound in the city.

Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns. They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have. It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though. At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US. This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have. It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though. At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US. This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

Selling to a prohibited person is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and the person doesn't even have to do anything with it. It's already in their interest to not sell to prohibited persons.

That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have. It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though. At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US. This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

Private sales are an intentional free-for-all in most states. Attempting to change those rules will be met with tremendous resistance because gun owners don't want to take personal responsibility for what happens with their guns. That's why I don't share your optimism that this proposition would have any real support from gun advocates.

Selling to a prohibited person is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and the person doesn't even have to do anything with it. It's already in their interest to not sell to prohibited persons.

This is intentionally dishonest. Background checks are not required in the vast majority of states for private sales. It is virtually impossible to prosecute or punish someone for a private sale in a state that doesn't require a background check or even ID before making a sale. It is a good example of how gun advocates will fight tooth and nail (starting with disinformation) to avoid anything that would increase their personal responsibility though.

This is intentionally dishonest. Background checks are not required in the vast majority of states for private sales. It is virtually impossible to prosecute or punish someone for a private sale in a state that doesn't require a background check or even ID before making a sale. It is a good example of how gun advocates will fight tooth and nail (starting with disinformation) to avoid anything that would increase their personal responsibility though.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time)

Private sales are a whole other ballgame, and that problem comes down to logistics of actually doing it. Simply changing a law isn't going to help that at all.

It requires registration and home inspections at a minimum to enforce, both of which have their own issues and debates. In any case, the quote I responded to specifically called out "real" sellers, so that's what I was talking about as well.

Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns. They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

There are plenty of gun control laws currently on the books, so many that police can't possibly enforce them all. I'm skeptical that passing more laws will have any affect. I would focus more on helping police enforce the most pertinent existing laws. For example, ensuring that people convicted of domestic violence don't possess firearms. Enforcing this law alone would have prevented a number of mass shootingshttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd

Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns. They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

There are plenty of gun control laws currently on the books, so many that police can't possibly enforce them all. I'm skeptical that passing more laws will have any affect. I would focus more on helping police enforce the most pertinent existing laws. For example, ensuring that people convicted of domestic violence don't possess firearms. Enforcing this law alone would have prevented a number of mass shootingshttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd

How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? How do you effectively prosecute people who sell to criminals when hamstrung by laws that prevent quickly checking via digital means who has sold what gun to whom?

I'm all for enforcing laws that currently exist. Unfortunately, there are structural roadblocks in the way when you attempt to do that.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

The is one of two arguments I see most... I might not like the end, so I am not going to start.

The is one of two arguments I see most... I might not like the end, so I am not going to start.

I'm not sure if you've seen the various other gun control threads, but this is brought up all the time. The reason many pro-gun folks are hesitant to "compromise" on current laws is because the compromise goes in only one direction, more regulation.

When we have numerous laws about the cosmetics of firearms, or how many parts on it are made in what country, that shows us the lawmakers are more concerned with making firearms a pain in the ass to get than they are with public safety. Somehow the laws on what sort of foregrip you can have never get repealed despite them being ridiculous to anyone who thinks about it for more than 30 seconds. Get rid of some of the silly laws to show you're actually concerned about safety and we can talk about laws that may actually help.

I agree completely. If we could enforce the current federal laws gun violence would drop dramatically

Quote

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAWFederal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. ß 922, generally prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;Is a fugitive from justice;Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;Is underage;Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; orHas been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.

This isn't a matter of give and take. Gun advocates have won - wholesale. Anyone can buy a gun without hassle in most states, without a background check or even a valid form of ID. It's extremely difficult to look up the sales history of a weapon . . . and even if you manage to jump through all the loopholes, that history ends the moment there's a private sale. The idea of registering or needing a license for a gun is an anathema. As ooeei has pointed out, even very minimal attempts to control firearms has been a total failure. Every part of this is a total win for gun advocates.

It is a mistake to expect that gun advocates will ever support any form of compromise (even for common sense reasons - assuming you could get anybody to agree on what those are). They've never had to in the past, they will continue to refuse to in the future . . . and this mindset gave them the win.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Another reason the gun control window is closed for the foreseeable future is that the issue became a left wing dog whistle for hate of heartland Americans.

I'm simply saying gun control advocate bungled the issue badly 2-3 decades ago, and the issue is a loser for liberals outside of their own constituency.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

There have been localities that have tried to ban firearms and states that seem to be pretty open to it. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find some senators and definitely some representatives that were open about their hopes of actually abolishing the 2nd amendment and/or prohibiting firearm ownership by private citizens. Not that this isn't a straw man argument you are throwing at the previous poster, but depending on your definition of US politician, it's pretty easily rebutted.

The real problem with getting gun control passed is that most measures are either explicitly nonsensical (such as banning guns based on cosmetic appearances) or they burden legal owners without presenting much of an obstacle to criminals, or they are using gun control to feel like they are "doing something" while avoiding a much more difficult question (i.e., how to stop mass killings by mentally ill and/or extremely troubled individuals without greatly curtailing the liberty of the mentally ill and/or just odd people who would never hurt anybody).

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

As others have pointed out, politicians in favor of "common sense gun safety" or whatever the branding is, while they typically pay lip service to the idea of the right to use guns, often praise gun confiscation and strict local measures, not to mention piecemeal encroachments of the right to use guns. Simply put, if you want to ban black synthetic rifles, "large" magazines, concealed carry and others, you don't support gun rights and there's no point in saying that you do. (Note that I have not attacked the generalized idea of background checks or licensing.)

And then you have things like Massachussets' impending ban on bump stocks. Dozens or hundreds of people have a device which is explicitly legal (per ATF letters) and are threatened with life imprisonment if they do not turn them in within the next week or so. This is a device which has been used in only a handful of crimes and which only exists because there is no legal process for a citizen to buy an actual select fire rifle, and in one week, the punishment for owning one will be more severe than the punishment for rape.

So of course people don't want gun registration... they're concerned about eventually being criminalized and imprisoned. I'm not even a gun owner and this concerns me. Imagine if we were to do the same thing on marijuana. People would, and rightly so, flip out.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

This thread itself, like may other "gun" threads before it, is ripe with irony. Everyone has their own version of why we shouldn't/can't have any discussions about common sense gun laws. People will come up with any excuse to defer the discussion. "Now is not the time," "Dems want to take away all the guns," "The stats don't warrant a discussion," "I want some laws revoked before I concede to more laws," "Stop using the phrase "gun control"," we can't enforce existing laws." All of these excuses are quite frankly bullshit and all the real reasons why there is no logical, sensible discussion.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should have an asterisk next to it with a footnote that reads "Unless infringing on my right to own a gun," because obviously it's more important.

And as far as specific gun control measures go, branding them common sense does not exempt them from analysis and debate. Some gun control measures, like universal background checks or licensing, do merit debate and should be seriously considered. Other ideas, like national concealed carry, also merit debate. Extremist or useless positions, such as banning assault weapons, are non-starters and not worth debating.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.

There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.

Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban. It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

As others have pointed out, politicians in favor of "common sense gun safety" or whatever the branding is, while they typically pay lip service to the idea of the right to use guns, often praise gun confiscation and strict local measures, not to mention piecemeal encroachments of the right to use guns. Simply put, if you want to ban black synthetic rifles, "large" magazines, concealed carry and others, you don't support gun rights and there's no point in saying that you do. (Note that I have not attacked the generalized idea of background checks or licensing.)

And then you have things like Massachussets' impending ban on bump stocks. Dozens or hundreds of people have a device which is explicitly legal (per ATF letters) and are threatened with life imprisonment if they do not turn them in within the next week or so. This is a device which has been used in only a handful of crimes and which only exists because there is no legal process for a citizen to buy an actual select fire rifle, and in one week, the punishment for owning one will be more severe than the punishment for rape.

So of course people don't want gun registration... they're concerned about eventually being criminalized and imprisoned. I'm not even a gun owner and this concerns me. Imagine if we were to do the same thing on marijuana. People would, and rightly so, flip out.

Yep, an NRA talking point misquote and a regulation. Neither of which are remotely close to a ban on all firearms. . . Because nobody is now, nor ever has been coming for your guns.

I think what all you bleeding heart liberals fail to realize is that it's hella fun to shoot stuff and pretend that we're gonna get us some bad guys. So what if a few thousand children have to die. Bang bang! In my dreams, I got you bad guy! Bang bang bang! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In all seriousness, I talked about this a little bit in my journal, but White Trash love guns because we really hope that someday we'll have an excuse to kill someone and get away with it. It's always on our minds. Some guys are just too impatient to wait for a legal excuse. Sad, but truth.